Players no longer push steroid-era boundaries

Although the cliché has been used by many an athlete to describe his or her commitment to winning, the definition of "whatever" has always been at the heart of ethical debates in sports and applies to the discussion of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) by the stars of Major League Baseball's steroid era.

"Whatever" can take many shapes and forms. One pushup by an athlete preparing for an upcoming season is performance enhancement, but so is the use of human growth hormone (HGH) to hit a ball farther, throw it harder or do both for a longer time. By the 1990s, the Olympics, the NCAA and the NFL deemed the use of many PEDs illegal. They all instituted drug-testing programs, and there were punishments associated with failed tests. There was no ethical debate among athletes in these environments. An athlete either followed the rules or broke them and then tried to conceal the action.

In MLB's steroid era, defined as the late 1980s through the early 2000s, there were some substances that were banned, there were many that were not, and there was no testing. During this time, it was left up to the players to define "whatever." For them, PED use was a question of right and wrong and not illegal and legal. To understand the difference in the definition of "whatever," one has to understand the mindset of an elite athlete. The great ones look for whatever edge they can get in their pursuit of greatness and the rewards associated with that.

It can be argued that a player's decision to use PEDs was based on what he valued and had at stake. For the likes of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds - all accused of PED use - there were home-run chases to be had, unbreakable records to be broken, careers regained and prolonged and new contracts to be negotiated. For the less famous players, expanding the definition of "whatever" may have meant a major league roster spot versus being sent to the minors or that chance to add a few years to their careers.

For those who did not expand their definition of "whatever," they may not have achieved what others had, but they stayed true to themselves and can look at themselves in the mirror. In each of the scenarios, it was the outcome, or what was valued, that defined the "whatever" for a player. The use of PEDs did not give the player the skills; the PEDs either provided an advantage or enabled a player to keep up with the others who were using.

It is easy to place the blame solely on the players, but baseball and society embraced the exploits of these heroes. They helped save the game after the 1994 strike. McGwire and Sosa were named Sports Illustrated Sportsmen of the Year for 1998, even after McGwire admitted to using androstenedione, a substance banned by the NFL and the NCAA but not illegal in MLB at the time. Sosa was named National League MVP.

A Nike commercial titled "Chicks Dig the Long Ball" captures the era best, as Cy Young Award winners Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine are overlooked by Heather Locklear, who is in search of McGwire. If you have never seen it, Google it. Funny when aired originally, it is now a sad commentary on the time. Glavine and Maddux were first-ballot Hall of Famers. McGwire, although still in baseball as a coach, is a cautionary tale mentioned in the same breath as Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson in Hall of Fame discussions.

The steroid era is becoming a distant memory as baseball marches on, but each year when the stars of the era appear on the Hall of Fame ballot, the validity of their statistics and their character are called into question. But, if you were offered the chance to do your job 30 percent better than you currently do it and, in turn, be paid three times more, and you are not breaking any rules, would you take the chance? Oh, by the way, if you don't take the offer, somebody else will, and you could miss out on opportunity, fame or be out of a job completely. This was the proposition that a player during the steroid era faced. This was the proposition made to incredible competitors seeking an edge and doing whatever it took to succeed.

The use of PEDs is no longer an ethical debate in baseball. Substances were banned, and testing began in the early 2000s. Those who use them are out-and-out cheaters and if caught, will face the consequences. See Ryan Braun and Alex Rodriguez, to name a few. Both have paid the price of using banned PEDs in the post-steroid era. For both, it was not an ethical question. They outright broke the rules.

Players today will strive for greatness and will earn the prestige, fame and fortune that go along with it, just as the players during the steroid era did. It is just that the definition of "whatever" has boundaries in regards to PEDs. There are also now consequences for crossing those boundaries that were not present during the steroid era. Play ball.

Dr. Matthew J. Robinson is a professor of sport management and the director of the Sport Research Center for Applied Business and Economic Research.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Players no longer push steroid-era boundaries

Although the cliché has been used by many an athlete to describe his or her commitment to winning, the definition of 'whatever' has always been at the heart of ethical debates in sports and applies